Proof of address

The last time I visited India, I tried to open an account at the local branch of one of India's largest nationalized banks. In order to open an account you need, among other things, a 'proof of address'. It may be a passport, an electricity bill or any of a list of documents that carries the applicant's name and address. Having lived in the US for six years, I had no such document. My passport has a really old address on it, and I pay no bills in India. What the bank really needs is proof of citizenship, and an address for correspondence (which is rarely used since these banks seldom mail statements).

At first I thought that I would try reasoning with the bureaucracy although something told me that things would not go anywhere. As expected, I was thwarted by a clerk who asked 'How will the bank know where you live?'. I felt like replying 'How does the bank care where I live?', but I sensed triumph in his voice and decided to abandon this line of attack. I have seen this clerk coming to work and sitting on the same chair for the last ten years whenever I have been to the bank. The faces in a bureaucracy rarely change. They start young, grow wrinkles, and disappear after about four decades. When I arrived early at the bank one day, I saw this man arrive, sit on his chair, and open his books with a look of sheer annoyance on his face. He hates his job. Why add to his misery by arguing? He doesn't make the rules, he simply follows them; and he may have rightly concluded through experience that his life is simpler if he does not bring reason to the table.

Address does not prove citizenship, and most citizens in India do not have a home of their own, but then a lot of things in a bureaucracy don't make sense. But the not-making-sense part is only the tip of the iceberg. The real pain lies elsewhere. In order to get any of the 'proof of address documents', I would have to get an electricity or phone account, buy immovable property, procure one of the other items from the same list, or to go to an administrative officer, who supposedly knows every person in his particular densely populated locality of India. A clerk at the bank told me that some Bangladeshi citizens had accounts in their branch. Why not? How does the administrative officer know me from a Bangladeshi? All four of my grandparents were born in what is Bangladesh today before independence and the partition of India.

Somewhere during the process it struck me. If they weren't going to use the address, how did I care what address my passport had? I used my passport, and also let the manager know that this was not my current address. He sent me to a clerk who informally made a note of my true address and that was that. The system works, albeit not in a meaningful or foolproof way. It works in the traditional Indian ishtyle.

Being right all the time...

It is tempting to draw a line between the things we do and the things we don't and call it the line between right and wrong.

It is tempting because we get to do what we like, and we get to think of ourselves as being right all the time. We also get to think of ourselves as fair, applying the same uniform standard of righteousness to everyone. Then there is the joy of meeting the highest standard effortlessly, and seeing others fail frequently. Having a holier-than-thou attitude certainly has its perks!

Strength

As a youngster trying to discover myself, my instincts often headed in the direction of strength. 'I’d rather be a hammer than a nail'. Strength is cool. You get to do what you want, people respect you, a lot of positives and no negatives. So I began to act strong. Breaking rules is a sign of strength. So is rowdy behavior. Conforming to rules cannot be strong because someone else gets to dictate what I do. And this was not an original conclusion of mine, but a widespread belief that preceded and has outlived my adolescence. Notice that God is equated to kings, and His chosen ones have the ability to break nature's laws? They call it performing miracles, sounds more cool that way.

So strength lay in acting macho. But in my life I had received nothing but kindness from my parents, my teachers, and other adults around me. 'What is strength?' I asked myself. When two people arm-wrestle, and one wins, the winner is clearly stronger. If these two people were to meet in a dark alley, and one were to rob and kill the other, would the robber be stronger? Something seemed wrong. Bullies, robbers, rapists, child molesters, murderers, and particularly dictators who succeeded in oppressing millions of people would all have to be considerably stronger than their victims in the traditional sense.

There is something in us that revolts at the idea of admitting that wrong-doers are actually strong - nope, we should not give them a single point for what they did. Something as positive as strength cannot be associated with crime. Gandhi said 'The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong'. He also said 'A weak man is just by accident. A strong but non-violent man is unjust by accident'. Wait a minute, we seem to be redefining strength here. There is no reason for the arm-wrestling winner to be just, or for the just to be forgiving. These are different character traits that may or may not be found in the same person. What Gandhi really meant is that justice, non-violence and forgiveness are good, and therefore he associated them with strength, which is also perceived as good.

I concluded that strength, as in the ability to succeed, is completely neutral on the scale from bad to good. Like a hammer, it totally depends on what you do with it.

Popular Elections

I believe in democracy. Power can be the means to a good end, but absolute power holds the greatest attraction for the worst people – who do not question themselves and seek not to be questioned by others. The kind and the fair rarely need power to achieve their ends. Democracy distributes power among many, and enables stability, which is valuable even at the cost of efficiency. Inefficiency is something I can live with. What bothers me is the lack of reasoning behind our collective democratic decisions.

America is heading towards another national election. I see the presidency as a 'job' of great power (therefore responsibility). Every American adult citizen is invited to have a say in filling up this position. Yet, some of America's top elected leaders seem to be the kind of people whom I would not hire as my financial advisor, security-expert, child's tutor, doctor, director of my company... But then, these leaders are the people’s choice.

In my opinion, most people perceive the election as a popularity contest. As time passes, I see more and more blatant deviations between the process of election, and the process of hiring. Apparently, a large majority of African Americans favor Obama. Women, especially elderly Caucasian women, favor Clinton more. One of the big problems in Romney's campaign was his Mormon religion. The allegation of Obama being Muslim is a serious concern to his campaign. Evidently, racial, gender and religious profiles play important roles in hiring the one person who will direct security, healthcare and education. All this in a country where if a company were to use these criteria in hiring, lawsuits would soon shut it down. I don't believe that people attach as much importance to criteria such as religion, race and gender when seeking services at a personal level. So what changes in an election? My conjecture is that most people don't see 'leading the country' as a job. Not surprisingly, the immeasurable acumen required in deciding policy is unfathomable to most people. Driven in part by blissful ignorance, and partly by the large optimism bias in humans, most people fail to consider the consequences of putting a person of inadequate ability and experience on the hot seat.

This monologue would not be complete without mentioning the role of the media. Media personnel have a strange job. They must produce eight (or however many) hours of news no matter what happens, or even if nothing happens. Watching these people discuss the campaign in painful detail each day from morning until night for nearly a year evokes pity. No wonder, even those who rarely follow the news encounter 'Is America ready for its first black president?', 'Why American women are empowered but not in power', and 'I can't believe we have a candidate who's middle name is Hussein'. The amount of time expended on the discussion of such topics would strongly suggest to the audience that somehow the biases that we strive to fight in our daily lives should acquire foremost importance in America's choice of its leaders.

This bizarre mismatch between political leadership being a crucial job, and the election process being a large-scale popularity contest is one of the greatest weaknesses of democracy. The case of America is just an example, and a relatively benign one by comparison with some other democracies.

India Growing

India's population used to be 357 million in 1950. From 1950-2000, the population grew at roughly 2% annually to just over a billion. In the last two decades, governments carried out an extensive media campaign to spread awareness regarding birth-control, and to point out the benefits of having small families. Despite the campaign, the population grew at 1.8% between 1990 and 2000. Although the growth rate is likely to keep going down, by the latter half of the 21st century, India may have to accommodate 2 billion people in a third of the area of the United States.

In stark contrast to China, which has taken extreme measures to control its population, the Indian government has resorted so far only to spreading awareness and making birth-control available to those who ask for it. These are positive steps, but their effectiveness is somewhat limited. To make a person do something, we can use several measures:
1. Polite request
2. Point out advantages
3. Provide incentives
4. Impose penalties for non-compliance
5. Use force
A government can use all five (and maybe others). China relied on the bottom (most effective but harsh), and India started from the top (benign but inefficient). In fact, I am not aware of any monetary incentives given for having few children in India. For the poor, cheaper and more rice and sugar in monthly rations would be a good incentive to have few children. And the government would save far more in the long run, than it would spend in extending such subsidies. For those with taxable income deducted at source, a tax cut would be a good incentive, again saving the government money in the long run.

Governments in India are run largely on populist principles. In the last two decades, power has regularly changed hands from one party to the next, thereby making politicians eager to avoid displeasing anyone. But try as they may, power changes hands in every national election. On the outset, this may seem surprising for a country with a rapidly growing economy, but it is not really. Money being important for happiness, a nation must have a healthy combination of wealth-creation, and wealth-distribution. In India, growth has far outstripped distribution. When 10% of the people have 90% of the money, the rich do not make a fuss about buying necessities at unreasonable prices. Inflation goes through the roof, and life becomes miserable for the majority of people. The frustration of the majority is then directed at those in power. Politicians will not be able to halt the flip-flop of power until they create avenues through which money can percolate from the rich to the poor, and from urban to rural areas.

Here I sit, in the comforts of my home in San Diego, thinking about the country where I was born, and its problems that are of a scale unfamiliar to Americans. There are things that make me glad, and others that make me a little melancholy. In a way, us humans are like trees. There is no such thing as a perfect transplant for a grown-up; we just learn to live, adapt, and deal, and in the greater scheme of things, that's not so bad at all.

Excerpt from 'The Cloak' by Nikolai Gogol

The young officials laughed at and made fun of him, so far as their official wit permitted; told in his presence various stories concocted about him, and about his landlady, an old woman of seventy; declared that she beat him; asked when the wedding was to be; and strewed bits of paper over his head, calling them snow. But Akakiy Akakievitch answered not a word, any more than if there had been no one there besides himself. It even had no effect upon his work: amid all these annoyances he never made a single mistake in a letter. But if the joking became wholly unbearable, as when they jogged his hand and prevented his attending to his work, he would exclaim, “Leave me alone! Why do you insult me?” And there was something strange in the words and the voice in which they were uttered. There was in it something which moved to pity; so much that one young man, a new-comer, who, taking pattern by the others, had permitted himself to make sport of Akakiy, suddenly stopped short, as though all about him had undergone a transformation, and presented itself in a different aspect. Some unseen force repelled him from the comrades whose acquaintance he had made, on the supposition that they were well-bred and polite men. Long afterwards, in his gayest moments, there recurred to his mind the little official with the bald forehead, with his heart-rending words, “Leave me alone! Why do you insult me?” In these moving words, other words resounded—“I am thy brother.” And the young man covered his face with his hand; and many a time afterwards, in the course of his life, shuddered at seeing how much inhumanity there is in man, how much savage coarseness is concealed beneath delicate, refined worldliness, and even, O God! in that man whom the world acknowledges as honourable and noble.

Brevity is the soul of wit

So said Shakespeare, and I agree wholeheartedly. Brevity is the soul of most communication. The same message repeated loses its charisma. Perhaps it is the 'familiarity breeds contempt' postulate. A message, once spoken, becomes familiar to the listener, and when repeated it is annoying. I once read an article that claimed that the human mind relaxes through variety more than it does through sleep, because the mind does not sleep when we do. Old information = no variety. Is that why we are attracted to sources of new information: news, magazines, blogs, novels, the latest ____?

An exception the above rule is when there is no new information to begin with. Two entities share a common belief, and expression of the belief in between them is reassuring. Maybe the brevity principle applies more to disagreeable messages and to information that we have no emotional connection with, than to pleasant exchanges. After all, it is information the mind eats: A lot of sweetness is fine, but the bitter and tasteless stuff... briefer the better.

बादलों से बातें

'जब वी मेट' सिनेमा का एक गीत मुझे भा गया। गाने के शब्द थे 'आओगे जब तुम ओ साजना' , और गाना राग मेघ में था।

कहते हैं कि तानसेन जब राग मेघ मल्हार गाया करते थे तो सूखी धरती पर भी बारिश होती थी। आजकल San Diego में खूब जमकर बारिश हो रही है। तो मैंने सोचा कि जब मैं गाता हूँ, तो मेरे गाने से पहले ही, मेरे गाने की अपेक्षा में बूँदें टपकने लगती हैं। इसलिए मैं अपने आप को तानसेन का बाप समझने लगा था। और यही सोचकर मैं रोजाना रियाज़ करने लगा। फिर एक दिन, सपने में एक बादल आया। उसने कहा 'उस्ताद जी, आप हमारा इशारा समझ नहीं पाये। हम कहना चाहते थे की हम यूं ही बरस जायेंगे, न्योछावर हो जायेंगे, अस्तित्वहीन हो जायेंगे, आपकी बड़ी महरबानी होगी अगर आप नहीं गायें।'

The dilemma of 0,1 or more Gods

There was a chapter in my history book that dealt with ancient Hinduism, principles and practice. In particular, the authors spent some words explaining how Hinduism, while seemingly polytheistic, actually believes in one supreme power. Ancient verses to this effect were quoted. It was also mentioned that Hindus were considered inferior by Europeans because of their apparent polytheism.

Well... people often consider those with different beliefs and perspectives to be wrong, therefore stupid, and therefore inferior. Nothing original about that. To this day, Hindu temples, and many homes have several idols. And if someone asked me: 'Is Hinduism polytheistic?', my one-word answer to this 'Yes-No' question would be 'Depends'. But I found it interesting how one was considered more 'cool' than the other in the history book. These days of course, most people who are not too cool to not believe in any God, are cool enough to believe in only one God. They merely have not been able to agree which one it is.

The path to nowhere

I was recently watching a movie where a teenager aggressively tries to undermine the school's administration. He harbors a grievance that the school exploits its students by limiting their freedom. Intially he finds support among several classmates who view him as a role model, but as time passes it becomes increasingly clear that his actions are more deplorable than the school's. In the end, he is stopped and receives counselling. One of his teachers cites another student who had moved on a similar path and in the end committed suicide.

When a person has been moving passionately on a path for a long period of time, it becomes very difficult for the person to admit that all that has been done was wrong. It takes more courage and a lesser ego than most people have. It is far easier to continue in the same direction, dismissing all doubts. Creating an avenue for such a person to give up what he/she did without feeling overly humiliated can accelerate the process of recovery.

It is a different story when a large group of people join hands to undermine existing authority. Perceived exploitation cannot by itself move large masses over extended periods, unless the masses are incapable of reasoning. Lack of education or an insular society go a long way in obstructing the flow of reason. Sometimes though, the exploitation and deprivation are not perceived, but real. When people have almost nothing to lose, they have almost no reason to conform to the demands of established authority. Such problems have a disturbing property: they don't go away. They stay, and they accumulate over decades and centuries. Millions suffer, millions die. Count to a million. And all because we are not willing to stop and say: 'I am sorry that I hurt you. My bad. What would you like me to do to make it up to you?'

Excerpt from the movie 'Because Of Winn Dixie'

Opal: Gloria, you know Otis?
Gloria: No, I don't know Otis, but I do know what you told me about him.
Opal: You know he's a criminal? He's been in jail.
Gloria: Baby girl, come on. I want to show you somethin'. See this tree?
Opal: Yeah.
Gloria: Hmm?
Opal: Why are all those bottles on it?
Gloria: To keep the ghosts away.
Opal: What ghosts?
Gloria: Ghosts of all the things I've done wrong.
Opal: You did that many things wrong?
Gloria: More than that, baby girl.
Opal: But you're not a bad person.
Gloria: Doesn't mean I haven't done bad things.
Opal: But there's whiskey bottles on there, a-and beer bottles.
Gloria: That's right. I know that. I'm the one what drank what was in 'em, and I'm the one what put 'em up there. Oh, baby girl. You know, a lot of folks have problems... with liquor and beer. Get to start drinkin' and can't get stopped.
Opal: Are you one of those people?
Gloria: Yes, I am... but you know somethin'? These days, I don't drink nothin' stronger than coffee.
Opal: Did the whiskey and beer and wine... did they make you do all those bad things that are ghosts now?
Gloria: Some of'em. Some of'em I would've done anyway, with or without the liquor and the beer... till I learned.
Opal: Learned what?
Gloria: Till I learned what was the most important thing.
Opal: What's that?
Gloria: Oh... it's different for everyone. Got to learn it on your own. But, you know, we should judge Otis by the pretty music that he makes and how kind he is to all them animals, 'cause that's all we know about him now...